Not to mention the usual lack of background stars, which suggests that if the video is authentic, it's been denoised and cleaned up to wipe out
those bogeys that undermine NASA's cover up agenda.

Somehow you managed to overlook the two most obvious points. Given that almost the entire disk of the Moon is visible, the terrain is moving past very
rapidly. Also, if it were on the far side of the Moon, it would be out of line of site communication with the Earth. Pity you didn't notice these
facts because it might have lent substance to your post, rather than just mindlessly opining "it looks fake to me."

The images were recorded on the far side and transmitted to the Earth when the satellite regained communications. It's essentially a time lapse video.
As for the lack of detail, what do you expect? You probably have a better camera in your laptop these days.

Edit to add: why can't you see stars in this picture of the Moon? When you work it out, you will understand why your statement is so silly:

don't know about the video...but...It just sounds rediculous. Oh...we're flying an orbiter to the moon...to do some gravity survey...let's not
burden it with good cameras...we'll use those special ones. Who needs pictures anyway.

because there is already a hi-res satellite circling the moon, as I indicated in my post. Yes, I can imagine kids keeping interested in going
laboriously through 64TB of data. How does kids learn chemistry, or physics at school? Do they start with string theory, or organic chemsitry? NO,
they start with easy stuff, springs, falling balls, dissolving salt in water, etc.

The same here, IT IS A SCHOOL PROJECT, aimed for YOUNG KIDS. is it that hard to understand?

It's a whole lot easier to exit our atmosphere and track into orbit then to go to the moon. In the earths orbit there is at least some chance of help
arriving. On the Moon none. Imagine the MASSIVE amount of Oxygen that you would have to take to the moon on a regular basis and the extreme danger of
taking compressed Oxygen in mass amounts on a rocket into space. Talk to any truck driver who transports gases what Altitude change does to their
cargo. It isn't all that simple down here let alone getting it into space.

Actually, in terms of delta-V, the hardest part is getting from the Earth's surface into orbit. Once you're there, the additional delta-V isn't as
much as you might think. To look at real-world proof of this admittedly counter-intuitive concept, contrast the Saturn-V first stage (needed to lift
the whole stack from ground to orbit) with the single J-2 engine on the S-IVB stage that inserted the craft into its transfer trajectory to the Moon.

As for the possibility of help arriving in Earth orbit and not arriving on the Moon, here's a simple question: What are we going to launch this
hypothetical help with? Whether you're in Earth orbit, or on the Moon, you've really got the same options if and when an emergency hits. You either
deal with said emergency with local resources (Apollo 13's classic 'fit the round peg in the square hole' air filter trick is a great example),
abandon the vehicle or station that has the emergency (again, Apollo 13 demonstrated this by moving the crew into the LEM), or you die (Columbia,
unfortunately). An orbital station gives you a bit better chance of safely abandoning the situation (get back in whatever capsule you came in, and go
home), while a Lunar base has advantages as well...more local resources (never underestimate the value of simple dirt, or the ability to dig a hole in
same), and radiation shielding, to name just two.

The oxygen issue isn't an issue either. There's a substantial amount of aluminum oxide in the lunar crust that could be chemically or electrically
processed (solar power's free for the taking up there) to generate oxygen, as could underground or shadowed ice deposits. If we *did* have to ship
large amounts of oxygen to the Moon, it wouldn't be in gaseous form...uncompressed, it takes too much volume, and compressed, the required tanks
would be prohibitively heavy. We'd ship it just like we shipped large amounts of LOx to orbit (and to the Moon) in the 1960's and 70's. We'd chill
it down to liquid, put it in insulated tanks, and launch.

As for emergencies in space, Apollo 11 had an emergency, but not many people knows about it (Circuit breaker broke), Apollo 12 lost the fuel cells,
and almost all guidance went down after being struck twice by lightning on the way up. Apollo 12 made it to the moon, despite the fact that some
instrumentation remained out of order after they recovered from the lightning strikes, and everybody knows about Apollo 13. All these emergencies have
been coped with. Apollo 11's one is almost not even worth mentioning, but if they didn't keep a cool head, it might have been disastrous, same with
Apollo 12.

Just a small point. The absence of visible stars is not evidence of fakery, that's what space looks like mostly within the solar system, and
certainly when the cameras have to cope with the light from the Sun. The OP has been misled by too many SF films.

Still waiting...this thread was based on the fact the Op believes that the dark side of the moon is CGI/hoaxed by NASA and their evidence for this
...is the claim that amateur astronomers have photographed mysterious things on that side of the moon.

Where is this evidence and also...how the hell did they photograph that side of the moon when no one else on this planet can see it?

only one face of the Moon, the "near side", is visible to us. The dark side or far side is permanently rotated away from our planet.

this is ridiculous, i mean you are now arguing about conspiricy theroies this thread was created on the premise, that the images were computer
generated.

i dont believe this, crap about moon towers, but lets look at this from a distance, are you telling me they hired the most boring voiced female on the
planet. to narrate a video and videos, with the soul purpose of educating kids?

i mean maybe, but it will fail, her voice is painful, sounds like a mans.

but the fact is its most likely a real video, it just does look slightly edited, certain anomalies in the picture on the right side, along with light
differences.

this is no pyramid, with an all seeing, eye were going to take over the world, thats ridiculous. you think they would do that at some point people
would not revolt. if history has taught us anything. its that man will revolt. hel accept so much, but revolutions always come if you push him. in the
fact one of the only governments with no revolutions, is nazi germany, and they were only in power for 10 years?

this is just a video saying there probaly is nothing up there, but why does it look so shat, the quality.

micheal bays moon in transformers, looks like a* work next to this video.

oh wait what were seeing here is a bunch of regular guys, on computers can create better images, than high paid, extremley smart scientists, and
engineers, in fact supposedly they tell you some of americas greatest minds have at some point worked at nasa..

Originally posted by Chadwickus
NASA does do more than take photos you know...

yeah they do...

Bomb the Moon
Blow up Comets for sport
Deliberately smash spacecraft into things (cosmic litterbugs)
Find Arsenic lifeforms in a puddle but its shown later they jumped the gun
Deliberately attempt to hide the Airplane Safety study they were commissioned to do until Congress orders them to release it while they were trying to
shred documents..
Send Jack Booted goons to harass an old lady over a moon rock (I didn't even know NASA had Cops/Agents)

Originally posted by DJW001why can't you see stars in this picture of the Moon? When you work it out, you will understand why your
statement is so silly:

Well after you explain why we CAN see stars in this one... then you will see why I think you explanation is so silly

I have heard all the arguments why no stars appear in certain NASA photos, yet I was never satisfied with the answer...

I looked around for some time to find a film like the following video from NASA. This one is perfect because not only does it show stars, but has what
I wanted most, a recognizable constellation so there is no question that we are seeing stars.

Now what makes this film also useful is that it is filmed with the low resolution black and white camera and even when the camera points at the bright
moon, you can still clearly see the stars.

The constellation is Orion, a very recognizable feature indeed and you can even see four stars in the sword

Orion for comparison...

OH and BTW just ignore the door shaped UFO zipping by.... this post is about the stars

as you can see from that video clip, the moment the moon comes into view, the moon is hopelessly overexposed, that is why you can see the stars. If
you correctly expose for the moon, you won't see the stars. Digital cameras only have a limited dynamic range, you can't have both (In a couple of
years things might change).

Originally posted by Hellhound604
as you can see from that video clip, the moment the moon comes into view, the moon is hopelessly overexposed, that is why you can see the stars. If
you correctly expose for the moon, you won't see the stars. Digital cameras only have a limited dynamic range, you can't have both (In a couple of
years things might change).

yeah well when your on the Moon the Moon isn't up there

besides NASA says if you remove the atmosphere on Earth the sky would look like the picture below...

Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ...
with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. apod.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Hellhound604
as you can see from that video clip, the moment the moon comes into view, the moon is hopelessly overexposed, that is why you can see the stars. If
you correctly expose for the moon, you won't see the stars. Digital cameras only have a limited dynamic range, you can't have both (In a couple of
years things might change).

yeah well when your on the Moon the Moon isn't up there

besides NASA says if you remove the atmosphere on Earth the sky would look like the picture below...

Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ...
with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. apod.nasa.gov...

So NASA's right hand says one thing while it's left says another...

NASA = Never A Straight Answer

edit on 5-2-2012 by zorgon because: Moon Pixies are REAL

If you are outside the atmosphere, as long as the sun or the moon are in view, you still wouldn't see anything. As for no stars on the moon, if a
single part of the moon that is in view, reflects the sun, you won't see stars. In darkness, no sun, no moon in view, how long does your exposure
time (at ASA 200) have to be, to get images of the stars? a couple of seconds. I suggest taking an elementary course in photography, then you will
know how exposure times versus light intensity works.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.